The Supreme Court instructed the Allahabad High Court for the second time in 20 days that it should avoid making controversial remarks in any case. On April 10, the High Court said while granting bail to the rape accused, ‘The victim girl herself called trouble, the same responsibility for the rape
,
In fact, the Supreme Court was hearing another comment by the Supreme Court Allahabad High Court on March 19, “Breast pressing and breaking the string of pajamas cannot be considered as an attempt to rape”. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court referred to the Allahabad High Court’s comment on April 10.
A bench of Justice BR Gawai and Justice AG Christ in the Supreme Court said that the decision of the High Court judge should be decided on the basis of the facts related to the case. Unnecessary remarks against the victim girl should be avoided.
Justice Gawai said-
Bail can be granted in the case, but what happened that the victim herself called trouble. The judge should be cautious while making such comments.
On this, SG Tushar Mehta said that justice should not only be done, but should also be visible. From which perspective the common man will see such an order, it should also be thought.
Now read both these matters in detail …
1. First case; On which the High Court commented on 10 April
On 1 September 2024, a MA student at a university in Gautam Buddha Nagar filed a rape case in police station Sector 126. The student wrote in her complaint that she studies in a PG Hostel (Paying Guest) in Sector 126, Noida. On 21 September 2024, she went to visit Delhi with her friends. In Hauz Khas, everyone held the party, where three boys along with three of his friends also came.
The student told that Nischal Chandak also came to the bar. Everyone drank alcohol. The victim was very intoxicated. It was 3 o’clock in the night. Nischal asked him to walk with him. On her repeated saying, the girl agreed to walk together.
The victim alleged that the accused kept touching him wrongly all the way. The student had asked to walk in a house in Noida, but the boy took her to a relative’s flat in Gurugram, Haryana, where she raped her twice.
The police arrested the accused Nischal Chandak on 11 December 2024 after registering the case.
- The argument of the government lawyer was- both the victim and the accused adult: Accused Nischal Chandak had filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court demanding the release of bail during the investigation of the case. The victim himself told the court that she is an adult and lives in a PG hostel. She went to the bar with male friends on her own free will, where she drank alcohol together. She was extremely intoxicated. She stayed with her colleagues till three o’clock. During the hearing, the government lawyer opposed the bail plea. The court, after hearing both sides, found that it is not a matter of dispute, as both the victim and the applicant are adults.
- The High Court had said- The victim herself called the trouble: During this, the court said, the victim is a student of MA. So she was able to understand the morality and importance of her act. As he has revealed in the FIR. Therefore, the court believes that even if the victim’s charge is accepted as true, it can also be concluded that he himself has invited trouble and he is responsible for this.
- The accused said- everything happened with consent: The accused told the court, the woman needed help and she herself agreed to go to rest at home with her. The accused has also denied the allegations that he took the woman to his relative’s flat. Rape twice. He claims that there was no rape, but had sex with consent.
2. Second case; On which the High Court commented on 19 March
The Allahabad High Court said in a rape case on March 19, “Breast pressing and breaking the string of pajamas cannot be considered an attempt to rape.” This comment was made by the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of Allahabad High Court. Justice Mishra accepted the Criminal Revision Petition filed against 3 accused.
The case was automatically taken cognizance by the Supreme Court on 26 March. The bench of Justice BR Gawai and Justice AG Christ heard. The bench said, “Some of the comments made in the High Court order show completely insensitive and inhuman attitude.” The Supreme Court issued notice to the Center, Uttar Pradesh government and other parties seeking answers.
A bench of Justice BR Gawai and Justice AG Christ said-
This is a very serious matter and a lot of insensitivity was shown from the judge who gave this decision. We are very sad to say that there was a complete lack of sensitivity in the decision -making person.
The Supreme Court had said that it is against both humanity and law. Such comments reflect ‘insensitivity’ and are beyond the parameters of the law. Read full news …
